Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Stoobalou writes "Blizzard co-founder Frank Pearce reckons that fighting piracy with DRM is a losing battle. His company — which is responsible for one of the biggest video games of all time, the addictive online fantasy role player World of Warcraft — is to release StarCraft 2 on July 27, and Pearce has told Videogamer that the title won't be hobbled with the kind of crazy copy protection schemes that have made Ubisoft very unpopular in gaming circles of late. StarCraft 2 will require a single online activation using the company's Battle.net servers, after which players will be allowed to play the single-player game to their hearts' content, without being forced to have a persistent Internet connection."

Seriously, this is why I love this company. Ever since being a young kid playing Warcraft Orc and Humans, then playing multiplayer against my dad, I've known they make quality games, how they want, when they are ready. I still play Diablo 2 to this day, completing Hell difficultly on Hardcore still gives me a feeling of achievement lacking in recent games!

Why the love? They are still shoving restrictive DRM at you, just not as restrictive as another company's DRM. That's like saying that the guy who broke both your legs was really nice because he didn't murder you. (Convert that to a car analogy if it makes you more comfortable)

When Microsoft implemented activation for Windows and Office I complained like mad and stopped upgrading. When games started doing it, I stopped buying games for a long time and just replayed my old ones as I didn't trust game writers

It's a single online activation. It would not surprise me if they release a patch sometime in the future to remove even that, especially if they take down the auth server. Blizzard has done similar things in the past, although on a small scale. You are not, since 1.15, required to have a CD in your CD drive to play Starcraft or Broodwars.

I don't mind that they are trying to protect the single player part of the game from casual copying. That multipalyer is forced to be on battle.net only is slightly annoying, but I had not intended to play anywhere else anyways.

You just answered your question. Online activation seems so simple, until it all goes wrong. You might install it on a notebook without net access (admittedly less of an issue these days). The servers might crash. A pirate might have already used your ID and you can't install. There may be limits to how many times you can install, so reinstalling after a system crash will cause problems. I don't know if it may happen in this case, but upgrading your computer may cause the software to think it has been copied onto another system and demand reactivation (or just stop working). The company might go bankrupt or just decide the software is at end of life.

But all that wasn't my point of my original post. The point was that you can't go around saying you don't have restrictive DRM and then implement restrictive DRM, but just less so than someone else.

Yes, you will have trouble installing this on the non-existent computers that have no way to connect to the Internet, even temporarily, but still are modern enough to meet the other system requirements. Yes, if the authentication servers crash, you may be forced to suffer without a video game for an hour or two (or rather, without this particular video game -- presumably you'll still be able to play others if you really, really can't just read a book or watch TV or something). A meteor might come out of the sky and destroy your computer. YOU NEVER KNOW! So many things may prevent you from getting your SC2 fix at the particular instant you want it most...

But all that wasn't my point of my original post. The point was that you can't go around saying you don't have restrictive DRM and then implement restrictive DRM, but just less so than someone else.

Apparently, you can. Furthermore, since "restrictive" can be a very relative term, you can do so with a straight face, in perfect accuracy, and be understood by most competent speakers of the English language, just like you can claim you don't like hot beverages but then drink a "cold" beer that's hundreds of degrees above absolute zero.

Yes, you will have trouble installing this on the non-existent computers that have no way to connect to the Internet, even temporarily, but still are modern enough to meet the other system requirements.

Rather than unable to connect, let's try unwilling to connect. I have always kept my games separate from my real computer network because I deem game programmers and DRM programmers to be suspect. Because I am installing things more often on a games system, there is more chance of things going wrong and viruses being introduced. For this reason, I always keep this away from my real data. The easiest way to do this is physical separation. This then limits access to the Internet.

Furthermore, since "restrictive" can be a very relative term, you can do so with a straight face, in perfect accuracy, and be understood by most competent speakers of the English language, just like you can claim you don't like hot beverages but then drink a "cold" beer that's hundreds of degrees above absolute zero.

Rather than unable to connect, let's try unwilling to connect. I have always kept my games separate from my real computer network because I deem game programmers and DRM programmers to be suspect. Because I am installing things more often on a games system, there is more chance of things going wrong and viruses being introduced. For this reason, I always keep this away from my real data. The easiest way to do this is physical separation. This then limits access to the Internet.

So you are paranoid enough that you don't want your gaming machines connected to your network of machines with personal data on them for fear of sneaky game and DRM programmers. You then go on to say the necessity of physical separation from your real network prevents you from hooking these machines up to the internet implying that your network with "real data" on it you care about is connected to the internet.

Am I the only one surprised that someone would view games as a larger incursion threat than being connected to the net?

On a side note, complete physical separation is not necessary, what you need is a good switch hooked up to your cable modem (or whatever your point of access for the internet is) set up with your gaming machines and "real" machines on separate VLANs.

I've seen exactly this happen. Two years ago my coworker and I were dragged to Spain and tossed into an apartment that didn't have internet.

First thing he did was put together a solid gaming machine that weighed a ton. But it was still another month before we would have internet so he was stuck hunting for a crack online just so he could play the game he payed for.

Yes, you will have trouble installing this on the non-existent computers that have no way to connect to the Internet, even temporarily, but still are modern enough to meet the other system requirements

It can also be a question of location. When I get a new machine, I use the wizard thingy to move my home directory and installed apps across. One game, Escape Velocity Nova, notices that it's running on a new machine and wants to update. First time I noticed this was when I tried to play it on the train. Ooops, no Internet, couldn't play it. I then tried a bit later to play it on campus. Well, there is Internet, but the firewall blocks the port that they use for authentication. I don't think I've tried reactivating it since then, I just make a note not to give Ambrosia Software any more of my money (and wrote them a polite email explaining why).

Yes, it isn't an inconvenience at *all* to have to haul my giant gaming PC to someone else's house just to install my new game.

What about people who just moved? What about people on a vacation? What if you installed it at a lan party that doesn't have general internet access?

I've been stuck for over a month waiting for the damn ISP to get my account set up and working again. I had planned to use that time to play Half Life 2, but hey, offline mode requires that you've activated online first.

Yes, you will have trouble installing this on the non-existent computers that have no way to connect to the Internet, even temporarily, but still are modern enough to meet the other system requirements.

I come from a country where connecting to the internet is a luxury. Luxury, as in "no ISP will ever consider offering you the service without explicit authorization from the government (or without a bribe)". Connecting, and having something else than HTTP access, was unheard of (unless, like me, you happened to work at one ISP, in which case, maybe you could be NATted from work).

Now, I realize, or at least hope, that Cuba is the exception (but don't fool yourself thinking about all the poverty - I know plenty of people who have brought games abroad). But internet access is not a guaranteed everywhere, even if you can afford a to buy a game.

If you don't have Internet access, you really have no need to play StarCraft 1 or 2. The whole point is the online play. I can see why people would get angry at online-activation for other games, but for competitive RTS games whose main purpose is online play, it really isn't an issue.

What? That may be your whole point to the game. Mine, I loved the campaigns, but I couldn't stand multiplayer games. Even if you are into multiplaying, with SC1, you could play over a LAN, no need for internet access. Don't be selfish and assume that because you (and a lot of other people) only enjoy the multiplayer games over the internet, no one else can enjoy any other form of play. We do - specially when online playing is not an option.

Of course, in Cuba, that point is moot. You have to be out of your mind pay for the game abroad, then violate the license by importing it to Cuba, then possibly violate some obscure Cuban law or directive by bringing it, then cracking it anyway to bypass the activation. But there are many people out of their minds... and while I can't be certain of it, if most Cuban gamers enjoyed SC1 without BattleNet, I can assume that many people who may have access to the game but not to the online services would also enjoy it.

What are your principles exactly then? If you want Free Software, obviously Blizzard's games are not for you. They never made any pretense to that fact. Of course, if you want Free Software there are only a VERY limited number of games that are for you (Beyond the 17th free version of Majong.) If I were to make a Venn diagram of "games I want to play" (beyond killing time a few minutes here or there) and "FOSS games" the overlap would be pretty small. If you want a game with no DRM at all, again, Blizz

Yes, you will have trouble installing this on the non-existent computers that have no way to connect to the Internet

My girlfriend has no internet access at home. She owns a modern PC.

Blizzard wont be selling a game designed for single-player offline gaming to her, because of an arbitrary and irrelevant constraint mandated by people that quite clearly hate their (potential) customers.

Yet again, the cracked copy (which will become available) will be easier to install and use.

No, getting hold of it with no internet access wouldn't be straightforward, but cracking/sharing games predates the world wide web..

Oh well, I'll loan her my copy of Total Annihilation - it was a better game that Starcraft anyway.

If she has a modern PC and no internet she's in a such a small minority that Blizzard simply doesn't care. Sad but true.

Which, rather surprisingly, has never been cracked (at least as of the last time I heard anything about it, which admittedly was a couple years ago).

That's because there is a version of Windows XP that doesn't require activation, and it happens to be much better than the version that ships with non-business PCs.

What version is it, you ask? Why, Windows XP Pro - Enterprise. What's great about this version is it doesn't even need a crack a lot of times. These versions generally come with several hundred to several thousand CD keys, so depending on who's enterprise keys were stolen, thousands of people could install XP with no problem.

A single online activation isn't 'restrictive'. it's the norm for a wide range of software packages and it is not unreasonable. A simple system to prevent casual infringement is a non-issue. ALL DRM by it's nature is restrictive in some way, but most are oppressively so. You mention a lot of those oppressive systems in your post, none of which are as painless as the Blizzard alternative. They already release patches to remove CD requirements on their Old games. There is no reason they couldn't release a pat

5 years ago you popped a CD in the drive and played the game, if you wanted to play multi your mate came over, installed it too, and you had fun.

But no one is going to do that anymore, so whilst they may want me to login once to activate the game, thats the best you are going to get. Considering the original battle.net is still up for D2 and Warcraft III I don't see any problem believing this won't be an issue. Those games aren't going anywhere, and Blizzard r

How is a single online account signup, your key is then bound to this account, any real form of DRM?

I paid for the game, I bind it to my battle.net account which has 4-5 other games on. I can log in and play whenever I want with no restrictions. No install limits, nothing. I can sell my account with all the games bound to it. Or create multiple battle.net accounts one per game and sell them seperately. There's no DRM/DLC or crap like that being pushed by other companies.

If you count a simple restriction of a login to prove the account you logged in with at some point legally bought the game (note the person using the account didn't have to buy it, you could lend it to a friend, or whatever). Then you've missed the point. I download stuff as much as the next guy, but when a company lets me use my purchase of the game the way I want. Then thats a good thing and should be applauded.

"I can sell my account with all the games bound to it. "No you can't. Whoever you sell it to, there is nothing stopping you from reclaiming it later, and the sucker claming fraud, hence it violates the terms of service.

Now "Activation" from a marketing point of view is a good thing, because they can track legitimate sales, and device what to put more development into. If everyone pirates the game and they only make a few hundred sales, then obviously the game is a bomb and they'll shut it down and cease fur

"your key is then bound to this account" because this put an extra burden to the second sale market. IMHO company like blizzard saw that DRM is useless for piracy, but that they could easily pretend to be only checking the validity of your copy without being intruding, when the goal all along is to kill the second hand market and bypass the first sale doctrine.

How is a single online account signup, your key is then bound to this account, any real form of DRM?

Here's the test: try to run the game without signing up. If you can't do that then it is a restrictive DRM. That's fine if you have no problems with that, just don't try to claim that it isn't restrictive DRM.

I paid for the game, I bind it to my battle.net account which has 4-5 other games on. I can log in and play whenever I want with no restrictions. No install limits, nothing. I can sell my account with all the games bound to it. Or create multiple battle.net accounts one per game and sell them seperately.

How many people really create separate accounts with a view to reselling their games? I would find that a total pain. What do you do, keep logging out and back in again to play another game online?

I can sell my account with all the games bound to it. Or create multiple battle.net accounts one per game and sell them seperately. There's no DRM/DLC or crap like that being pushed by other companies.

Exactly. What you can not do is to sell a single game out of your account. Or if you can, they might disable it tomorrow. If Blizzard goes out of business or stops caring, how will you activate your copy on a new system?

"StarCraft 2 will require a single online activation using the company's Battle.net servers, after which players will be allowed to play the single-player game to their hearts' content, without being forced to have a persistent Internet connection."

I have to agree. They are so close to getting it with realizing that the strategy is fundamentally flawed, but still they cling to DRM-lite.

Oh well. One day the industry will get it and drop all copy protection, like it did in the early '90s. And then the next generation of managers will demand protection and the cycle will start all over again and again and again.

One day the industry will get it and drop all copy protection, like it did in the early '90s.

I'm not sure about that. Services like Steam act as copy protection, but also do provide an easy way to buy software. If it looks like a benefit to the comsumer then I can't see any incentive for companies to go without DRM. Judging by the reactions here, enough people seem to think that this is a reasonable trade off - which is fine if you wait for the sales and don't pay full price for anything to offset the inability to resell your old games.

It looks like a benefit to some customers. I owned a boxed copy of Half Life, and I remember being unable to play online for most of the weekend that Steam came out, because it decided to download a new copy of the game (which took several hours), and then the servers were too loaded for the authentication to work. If I do a fresh install from the CD, then I can play right up until the last pre-Steam patch, on dedicated servers or in-game servers on a LAN or the Internet without needing Valve to exist. I

Alright! It's nice to see a fellow GOG'er, welcome brother! After trying Good Old Games [gog.com] I don't know if I can really stomach jumping through the other guy's hoops anymore. Having to deal with a bunch of discs, or having it phone home, install nasty viruses like SecuROM or Starforce, no thanks.

And from the looks of it they are just trying to put on a "happy face" to the same Ubisoft horseshit. And I quote "If we've done our job right and implemented Battle.net in a great way people will want to be connected while they're playing the single player campaign so they can stay connected to their friends on Battle.net and earn the achievements on Battle.net"

So how exactly is this different than the Ubisoft bullshit? He is just basically saying "We will make it so you WANT us to screw you hard baby!". I shouldn't need a fucking Internet connection to play a single player campaign and yet again it is just another excuse that screws the paying clients while the actual pirates laugh their asses off and don't have to deal with the bullshit. At least GOG treats me like a valued customer instead of a criminal. NO DRM, NO phoning home, NO payment hassles, NO limits to your installs, NO problems backing up the installers (just a single.exe), NO problems running on x64, in other words they make their option a better value than piracy instead of treating me like a thief for daring to give them my money.

Diablo 2 was just a "what if" example. I wasn't saying that it didn't work. The point was what happens if a new game today was being played in 10 years time like the poster was saying he was doing with Diablo now. Will the new games with the new DRM still work?

The company will intend to remove the DRM at some stage, but this is a volitile market and one day we are bound to have some company go under without freeing up their software. The receivers will be more interested in selling the assets rather than ke

Diablo 2 had DRM? My copy only required me to enter the serial number from the side of the box. It did require the disk to be in the drive to play, in theory, although the OS X version worked fine with an image of the disk mounted (Oh no! Apple's shipping circumvention devices! Quick someone tell the DMCA!). Not sure about battle.net, because I never used it; you can play multiplayer, both LAN and Internet, without it.

Unfortunately, they still require online activation, don't support LAN play, and are region locking SC2 so that you can't play with people from a different region without purchasing that regions version.

Unfortunately, they still require online activation, don't support LAN play, and are region locking SC2 so that you can't play with people from a different region without purchasing that regions version.

I consider region locking a plus. It's not very fun having someone on the other side of the world lagging up your game, which they seem to love doing in Warcraft 3.

I won't miss LAN play so much assuming it doesn't hurt the third party developers adding features that should be in the game anyway (from Warcraft 3: banlists, latency reducers, hosting bots, ping checkers, etc.)

Yet if Diablo 2 had the same sort of activation as SC2, and Blizzard stopped running BattleNet, you wouldn't be able to play it today, because when you upgraded your computer (I'm assuming you've upgraded since you bought D2) you wouldn't have been able to activate it again.

Blizzard is the same company that removed LAN play forcing an internet connection to play with friends from Starcraft II.

The same company that sued a producer of a cheat application on the basis that it hooks on their application, all the while including an application with World of Warcraft that does exactly that to all the other processes on your computer.

The same company that sued a group of people who produced a 3rd party solution for playing their games online so that you weren't restricted from playing when Blizzard had problems or deemed a game end of life, or otherwise restricted you playing the game you bought.

If you think Blizzard is a good company then it's a rather fucking sad reflection of how much a company can get away with nowadays without being chastised.

I remember a time when a good company was a company like id Software that released it's game to you, handed you a fuck load of mod tools, included no copy protection whatsoever, let you play it wherever and however you want, and eventually even released the full source code too.

It's like when Gabe Newell at Valve goes on about how he hates DRM and thinks it's useless, all the time whilst peddling the most restrictive gaming DRM on the planet via Steam until Ubisoft managed to outdo them for that title.

Just because someone at a company says they don't like DRM, doesn't unfortunately mean that their corporate strategy is to not use DRM, or to generally just not treat their customers like shit I'm afraid.

And both versions are on the same disk. I bought Diablo II and Lord of Destruction when I was on Windows, and exactly the same disk works fine for Mac. The installer is a Classic app, and doesn't run right on recent versions of OS X, but they released a new installer that does. The only other game that I own that had both Windows and Mac binaries on the install disk is Future Cop: LAPD, but it is a Classic app and won't run on a recent Mac, and the copy protection means that the Windows version doesn't r

Bonus -- if you like LAN play, you get sued [wikipedia.org]. Add Warden to the mix, and I hate Blizzard with a passion. "No onerous DRM?" Can't play on a LAN without access to your servers. Spyware monitoring your computer's memory every 15 seconds for an EULA violation. What are these? Pictures of cute little kittens?

To be honest, I call it a good use of coder resources – why fuck around implementing LAN play when that coder could be doing something else, and you can *already* play against someone on the same network as you.

And one of them involves fucking around detecting games on the local network, advertising them, setting up menu systems for them, while the other one involves just talking to one server. It then involves running a server locally or playing the game in a peer-to-peer mode; rather than just talking to one server.

Just because two things talk the same protocol, does not make one easy to implement if you have the other.

So why do local games between say family members require stat tracking? How about playing at LAN parties where no internet is available? What about some people who don't want stats tracked say for instance they are having a stupid muck around game rather than actually playing competitively?

In other words, stat tracking is good and fine, but where is the opt-out button?

Unfortunately, YOUR point of view is wrong. It's all part of their master plan to stat count everything that we do. Dammit, at the end of the week, if I'm the one who's had the most beers, I want an achievement! If all the massive paranoia (which you are now parroting) has convinced you otherwise, sorry.

...are destined to repeat it. I can remember, back in the early '80s, when computer games on floppies (remember them?) were "protected" by weird copy protection schemes, including scrambling the directory so that if you tried to copy the files you'd just get garbage. There were even games that blanked the directory as part of their startup, only re-writing it at the end, so that if you removed the disk before the game was over, you lost everything. It didn't last, because, among other things, people always found ways around it. Now, Blizzard is learning that old lesson Yet Again: copy protection is, and always will be a lost cause.

I actually stopped being a gaming customer specificaly because of being treated with no respect (by DRM, bugs and lies on system requirements), so I'll vouch for this. I wen't from being obsessed with buying new games to being deeply cynical and spiteful overnight, and I don't feel a smidgen of guilt about it. My philosophy, "you are getting paid by me, you don't get to dick me around" and if more people had the balls to use that philosophy, we wouldn't be in this mess.

I had to once work on a computer for someone who had an app that installed off of a dozen or so floppies, and on the last one, it moved a file off the floppy to the hard drive, rather than copying it. If you told the program to uninstall itself, you were actually prompted to insert that last floppy, so the license file could be moved back. Unfortunately, the person who had the computer did not know enough to back up the computer, or even the floppy set, so when their computer crashed, we were unable to re

Maxis did that with some of their games, as did SSI. SimEarth from Maxis at least and Eye of the Beholder from SSI.

I'm sure there were others. The bargain-bin 10-older-games-for-10-bucks boxes would include a PDF copy of the manual with a paper note to look in it, or sometimes would even have a list of just the questions and answers if they didn't offer the manuals.

but won't this "activation" business complicate reinstallation onto new OS/computer? And what about the lack of LAN play?

Don't get me wrong, less intrusive DRM is better than more intrusive DRM and I laud both Blizzard's actions and words here, but don't the standard criticisms still apply: that it only hurts paying customers (though it hurts fewer of them than worse DRM) and is ineffective against pirates?

Having been poked in the eye with a stick once, I have to say, activating a game online induces far less blindness and ball-shriveling pain than being poked in the eye with a stick.
Sure, its not ideal, but since when do we live in an ideal world? hell, if it was all rainbows and puppies, there would be no DRM, and every game produced would be mailed to you free of charge on the release date.
However, the fact of the matter is, Blizzard put years of work into making this game, spending God only knows how mu

I dont know how the Blizzard solution works but Command & Conquer 4 contains no copy protection as such. It contains nothing that prevents you from making multiple installs on multiple computers. It contains nothing requiring a disk in the drive.

What it contains is a link between your EA account and your license for the game. When you buy and install the game (online download or physical) you link the serial number for the game to you EA account.

In terms of convenience, Valve's Steam arguably beats CDs as long as you have a fast internet connection. Switching to a new computer? Download Steam, install it, log in and re-download your whole stuff with a few mouse clicks.

But the problem remains that your access to the games depends on the availability of Valve's servers. If Valve ever goes bankrupt you can probably forget your games:-(

Yes, but only slightly so. See, games with constant internet connection required and other such bullshit aren't worth buying because it's LIKELY that they won't work. With this activate once and you're done thing it's highly unlikely that it will fail. If the company goes out of business then you can always pirate it then.It's actually more of a pain in the ass to pirate the game and have to deal with half-assed cracks and things that don't unlock multiplayer options than it is to buy it. That's really

Their games are mostly played online, and they've left out home network play. Their DRM is not the usual crippleware, it's the new kind of crippleware that puts necessary software on the server while taking away features gamers have loved for over a decade.

Exactly. It's interesting to see people heralding Blizzard simply for not using nazi-level DRM. They should be criticized for removing the LAN feature from the game, not praised for not using always-connected DRM.Likely, they considered always-connected DRM and didn't use it because they didn't want to spend the money to operate the shitload of servers they would need for it. Think about it. WoW costs $15 due, in part, to the fact that these servers cost a good amount of money to run. Now imagining hav

Saying "it excludes anyone who don't have Internet" stopped being a serious argument years ago...

It excludes people that want to play the game on a computer not connected to the internet. There are some reasons to do so, but it does seem kind of odd to be playing games on a PC connected on a LAN, but not to the internet.

And here Blizzard has a trick : WoW requires a monthly fee. So used games resell aren't a "threat" to its income.StarCraft 2 would essentially be played online thru its battle.net servers and there you will need to have a valid account and register your game, as you would need to with Ubisoft. No one plays offline and alone.

Ubisoft's AssassinCreed2 is a game you can play only alone. So the "phoning home" from the DRM is artificial while it is "hidden" in games with a naturally online gameplay.

My friends and I used to play cracked Warcraft and Starcraft copies on our PCs. After we graduated and eventually had jobs, some of my friends bought authentic CDs because they felt that it was the right thing to do. They said that they've always wanted to buy the real thing but they didn't have money to do so. It was then that I realized that the figures that some companies claim to have lost to piracy are just a bunch of BS. I also realized that in order for a software company to be profitable, they need to make quality software that people actually use. Attempting to control how people copy their software is a waste of time.

My friends and I used to play cracked Warcraft and Starcraft copies on our PCs. After we graduated and eventually had jobs, some of my friends bought authentic CDs because they felt that it was the right thing to do. They said that they've always wanted to buy the real thing but they didn't have money to do so. It was then that I realized that the figures that some companies claim to have lost to piracy are just a bunch of BS. I also realized that in order for a software company to be profitable, they need to make quality software that people actually use. Attempting to control how people copy their software is a waste of time.

So instead of purchasing a game new for say $50 then the expansion for another $30 they waited till the set was $20 then purchased them all the while getting full use of a game that others paid full price for. That is stealing and is wrong in my book as they took something they liked then continued to play the game(although I know many people that did the same thing).

This is why Blizzard is adding DRM and removing LAN play because people can easily pirate the game with friends and play locally with one copy. Battle.net eliminates this which is why I think they did it.

As far as lost sales I think Blizzard is the only company that has a foot to stand on as there games have a lot of replay value in multiplayer. I still break out Starcraft and Diablo II every once in a while and don't feel guilty at all spending $55 dollars on them the day they came out as they are terrific games worth the price compared to most other games I've played a few times then left on the side wishing I had saved my money.

His point (which is very true) is that a pirated download doesn't necessarily mean a lost sale. I don't think it even means a lost sale the majority of the time. People who pirate games are:

1) People who are cheap asses and don't buy games because they can pirate for free. If piracy wasn't an option, they still probably would still buy some games, but they wouldn't buy nearly as many as they'd be willing to pirate.

2) People who can't afford the games. If piracy wasn't an option, they still couldn't afford them.

3) People who are unsure of a game and want to try it out. Some of these people will still end up buying a game if they like it (or like it enough).

4) People who only pirate a game because they could get it for free, and wouldn't bother with the game if they actually had to pay for it.

These are the most common 4 scenarios, and in EVERY scenario, the number of pirated copies is greater than the number of "lost sales". In half of these scenarios, the number of "lost sales" is actually 0% of the number of copies pirated.

Latest findings from the indie groups have found that a single pirate can download 90 games, while 9 honest players buy 9 games. Has a result the piracy is a "90%". What this means is that people that don't have to pay for the games, download all games, even these are not interested much, while people that buy games, play much fewer games.More findings about that: most people only buy 1 game / year (!!), so is very easy for a pirate to download 900% more than no-pirates.Pirates are pirating games are not

Blizzard forever lost me as a customer when they removed LAN play from their games, and sued the bnetd developers for restoring the feature. As far as I'm concerned, Blizzard and Microsoft are part of the same Axis of Evil (but for different reasons).

Unless of course they DON'T release a patch.Maybe because they at that point don't want to.Or maybe they are bought out by someone else who doesn't want to.Or maybe because they go bankrupt and there are simply no funds or willingness on the part of the company sweeping up the pieces to do so.

Copyright is NOT intended to protect media creators. It is intended to create public domain works by temporarily incentivising creators.

The deal is they get short term profits, humanity gets the product forever after. In addition there are fair use rights in the interim.

DRM breaks fair use, but not only that it breaks copyright itself.

Activation is DRM. DRM breaks copyright. By breaking their end of copyright yet taking advantage of OUR end of the bargain, they are stealing what does not belong to them. They are breaching a social contract.

What if they collect royalties for the many decades they're allowed to, and then just stiff us? What was supposed to be public domain is lost forever.

Please post your address, I'd like to come take all your stuff. You'll clearly be OK with that if I give you the vague impression that I'm "likely" to give it back to you someday.

Why do all recent games feel that a list/lobby based multiplayer environment is a bad thing?

Because the average Internet using gamer has proven to be a douchebag and not suitable to be out in public.

That and it doesn't scale well at the numbers Blizzard is looking at for SC2. What's the benefit of a list, when you have 21,000 games in it? What's the benefit of a lobby when you have 2,000 lobbies? You can't realistically find something by looking manually and produce a good user experience, so you let matchmaking take over for you.

Matchmaking? What about search? If you can't search for the players you want, then your LAN party can't play the game, even on BNet. Surely there's search? Automatch only would be a real deal-breaker worse than no LAN.

There's a friends system built-in. You can either friend a game specific player's avatar, or if you know their email address and they approve your request you can setup a mutual "RealID" friend connection, which even works cross-Blizzard games (friend in WoW? See if they want to join you in SC2). From there you can setup a 'party' and play your games as a group.

Ah, thanks. You had me worried there for a minute. I still probably won't buy the game at least for a long time, mostly because I don't buy many games these days. With all the older games I already have and the decent noncommercial games out there, I just can't see the point of buying yet another RTS at full launch price right now, even if it is really good. I'll keep it in mind next year, though.